Monday, April 15, 2013

Liberals: Legalize Polygamy, Can't Wait on Supremes

Much to the chagrin of homosexualists, other liberals won't shut up about rights to polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia, etc. Sexual revolutionaries have long strategized to corrupt the culture slowly, one abominable step at a time, but many extremists now believe the public is gullible enough to swallow it all immediately.

"[It's the] perfect moment to ensure that we become visible in all our diverse, complicated beauty. There's not one right way to do polyamory, and there's not one demographic that does it. Let's celebrate that."-- Sierra Black, polyamorist

. . . Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

[If a woman] wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

. . . All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. . . .

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

An Illinois state representative is under fire after he compared legal same-sex marriage to laws allowing for polygamy or marriages between adults and minors in an e-mail response to a constituent.

State Rep. Tom Morrison, a Republican representing suburban Palatine, wrote early Wednesday in the e-mail obtained by HuffPost that "if you are for the re-definition of marriage to remove the gender distinction of one male and one female, then where would you draw the line?"

On the one hand, it's great to have the media taking a look at polyamory. I never tire of telling the world how much I love my people and how wonderful the lives we share are. We're healthy and happy and having a good time. That's a great thing to show the world: Look, here's an idea that is really good for some people.

It's especially good to show this side of things because so many people perceive polyamory as a problem. It's weird, it's deviant, it's immoral, it means you have commitment problems or low self-esteem. You can do it if you must, but it has to be a shameful secret. Don't let the kids find out. Don't let your mom catch you. What do the neighbors think? Etc.

On the other hand, the media isn't simply holding up a mirror to the reality of polyamory. They're shaping the cultural perception of what polyamory is and who does it by carefully choosing the stories they tell.

. . . More important than merely presenting a more diverse image of polyamory to the media and our social circles is embracing a richer, more diverse model of relationships and community. . . .

Those arguing for "marriage equality" at the U.S. Supreme Court this week should be ashamed of themselves.

They're just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?

How dare those seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton, or Proposition 8 ratified by the people of California, stop at just redefining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same gender. Why do these people believe they have the authority to draw a moralistic line against any consenting adults, and thus force their moral standard upon the rest of us?

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against multiple consenting adults of any gender?

. . . within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”